"Exceptional Fluff" - the bane of RPGs (rant)

[Fuchs]

Frank's post about Steven Kenson reminded me of a pet peeve of mine: The way some RPGs are riddled with "exceptional fluff", the results of stupid novelists.

As soon as a RPG setting gets its own novels the novelists will wreck it. Instead of working within the system they - often unimaginative hacks - will create "exceptional characters", breaking rules and flavor, and often the setting itself because they could not create an interesting character and make do with some "special" character.

Instead of a compelling novel written about a young knight's struggle against a bandit lord, later revealed to be his half-brother, with the knight growing up and maturing, and facing the choices between honor, love, and family loyality, we're getting the young knight that's revealed to be the last scion of the royal line of the lost empire, facing off against the devil-spanwed bandit warlord leading the northern hordes against the southern kingdom before he can marry the celestial elven princess. And all characters have less depth than a cardboard cutout since the authors usually mistake "cool powers" for character detail.

Instead of a novel adding color to the setting we've got a big parts of the setting wiped off the map, and the rest changed into something we'd not recognize anymore from the setting's sourcebook, like the restoration of the old empire that was just background in the setting until they let a hack at the novels. In the process much of the setting's sourcebooks are rendered useless.

Instead of seeing characters molded after the classes or templates from the setting, and then filled with color and depth, showing what can be done with the "Fighter", "Knight" or "Rogue", we get some "not in the rules, but he's special" gestalt-fabrications, usually combining magic and martial arts into some overwhelming force, and either stealing all the thunder from actual PCs, or causing players to consider - quite rightfully, since the PCs are supposed to be the heroes, the special ones - such exceptions the norm, making most of the rules pointless NPC-only stuff.

In short, novels often harm rather than enhance a RPG since they are usually written by uncreative idiots.

Even if, by chance, there's an author that's actually good at writing, often the author simply doesn't grasp the RPG's peculiar flavor. Like Elaine Cunningham, a very good writer, who creates compelling characters but not D&D characters. If a character of her is a powerful priestess, then she'd at least attempt to raise dead her fallen lover. Same for a scion of the richest family in Waterdeep who discovers an unknown sister having been murdered - raise dead is just a donation away.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Instead of a compelling novel written about a young knight's struggle against a bandit lord, later revealed to be his half-brother, with the knight growing up and maturing, and facing the choices between honor, love, and family loyality, we're getting the young knight that's revealed to be the last scion of the royal line of the lost empire, facing off against the devil-spanwed bandit warlord leading the northern hordes against the southern kingdom before he can marry the celestial elven princess.

Wait a minute, why the hell would I want to read the first story instead of the second story?

Instead of seeing characters molded after the classes or templates from the setting, and then filled with color and depth, showing what can be done with the "Fighter", "Knight" or "Rogue", we get some "not in the rules, but he's special" gestalt-fabrications, usually combining magic and martial arts into some overwhelming force, and either stealing all the thunder from actual PCs, or causing players to consider - quite rightfully, since the PCs are supposed to be the heroes, the special ones - such exceptions the norm, making most of the rules pointless NPC-only stuff.

I can sort of see what you're getting at here--if someone made a movie about Batman it'd be offensive to the fans if Batman was shown killing unarmed gangsters with a gun and bribing politicians to get the laws he needed. But here's the thing; that's only offensive because they lured us into the setting with the promise of Batman playing a role.

If the movie was called 'Ratman' then we might not necessarily be so offended at the character doing these things.

But here's the thing:

Even if, by chance, there's an author that's actually good at writing, often the author simply doesn't grasp the RPG's peculiar flavor. Like Elaine Cunningham, a very good writer, who creates compelling characters but not D&D characters. If a character of her is a powerful priestess, then she'd at least attempt to raise dead her fallen lover. Same for a scion of the richest family in Waterdeep who discovers an unknown sister having been murdered - raise dead is just a donation away.

The tolerance for authors straying outside the source material should be balanced against how good the story is.

Because, let's face it, sometimes the source material is just downright retarded or baffling. People have been complaining for decades about how much they despise the revolving door afterlife of D&D; I'm not surprised at all that someone would decide to ignore this element of the setting when adapating to the novel.

Hell, in Goldfinger the movie, James Bonds points out the original plan in the novel (stealing gold from Fort Knox) is logistically impossible. The genuinely ingenious plan the movie comes up with is much better but is a grievous deviation from the novel, completely changing the final act. So?

Going back to your magical martial artist complaint, my question for you is how much the change adds and how important was the original setting element. If there are sects of wizards who cast D&D-like magic then it's not setting-breaking at all for there to be magical martial artists. But if magic works more like Harry Potter then you as the audience must seriously ask yourself how much enjoyment you get out of this setting contradiction and/or retcon. If the consensus is 'Hells yeah, I'd LOVE to see Bruce Lee hover around and deliver flying kicks to centaurs' then guess what direction the story should take?

[Fuchs]

Instead of a compelling novel written about a young knight's struggle against a bandit lord, later revealed to be his half-brother, with the knight growing up and maturing, and facing the choices between honor, love, and family loyality, we're getting the young knight that's revealed to be the last scion of the royal line of the lost empire, facing off against the devil-spanwed bandit warlord leading the northern hordes against the southern kingdom before he can marry the celestial elven princess.

Wait a minute, why the hell would I want to read the first story instead of the second story?

You left out the important part: "And all characters have less depth than a cardboard cutout since the authors usually mistake "cool powers" for character detail."
My main gripe is that too many "authors" can't write characters and instead write collections of powers and "special background", and too many authors can't create tension and instead put in a "world is in danger" clichee in a failed attempt to compensate.
And in a novel tied to a RPG setting, the setting shouldn't be changed as a result of the novel. If in a midnight novel the evil overlord is defeated and the setting returns to basically "good" as a result, then that's ruining the entire setting.

Instead of seeing characters molded after the classes or templates from the setting, and then filled with color and depth, showing what can be done with the "Fighter", "Knight" or "Rogue", we get some "not in the rules, but he's special" gestalt-fabrications, usually combining magic and martial arts into some overwhelming force, and either stealing all the thunder from actual PCs, or causing players to consider - quite rightfully, since the PCs are supposed to be the heroes, the special ones - such exceptions the norm, making most of the rules pointless NPC-only stuff.

I can sort of see what you're getting at here--if someone made a movie about Batman it'd be offensive to the fans if Batman was shown killing unarmed gangsters with a gun and bribing politicians to get the laws he needed. But here's the thing; that's only offensive because they lured us into the setting with the promise of Batman playing a role.

If the movie was called 'Ratman' then we might not necessarily be so offended at the character doing these things.

It's more like we've got rules for a batman setting, for creating batman-like characters, and the novels write about batman who discovers he is actually superman! And has Superpowers! and goes to town on all the batman-villains. What use are the rules and the setting if it's changed into something else by the novel?

Even if, by chance, there's an author that's actually good at writing, often the author simply doesn't grasp the RPG's peculiar flavor. Like Elaine Cunningham, a very good writer, who creates compelling characters but not D&D characters. If a character of her is a powerful priestess, then she'd at least attempt to raise dead her fallen lover. Same for a scion of the richest family in Waterdeep who discovers an unknown sister having been murdered - raise dead is just a donation away.

The tolerance for authors straying outside the source material should be balanced against how good the story is.

Because, let's face it, sometimes the source material is just downright retarded or baffling. People have been complaining for decades about how much they despise the revolving door afterlife of D&D; I'm not surprised at all that someone would decide to ignore this element of the setting when adapating to the novel.

Hell, in Goldfinger the movie, James Bonds points out the original plan in the novel (stealing gold from Fort Knox) is logistically impossible. The genuinely ingenious plan the movie comes up with is much better but is a grievous deviation from the novel, completely changing the final act. So?

Going back to your magical martial artist complaint, my question for you is how much the change adds and how important was the original setting element. If there are sects of wizards who cast D&D-like magic then it's not setting-breaking at all for there to be magical martial artists. But if magic works more like Harry Potter then you as the audience must seriously ask yourself how much enjoyment you get out of this setting contradiction and/or retcon. If the consensus is 'Hells yeah, I'd LOVE to see Bruce Lee hover around and deliver flying kicks to centaurs' then guess what direction the story should take?

That is the thing - Elaine could have found ways to explain why raise dead did not work. She simply ignored it though, which felt wrong.

And my whole point is that the novel should be true to the setting. If there are no rules about superman in the batman game, superman shouldn't be in the batman novel. Especially not as main character.

[Lago PARANOIA]

You left out the important part: "And all characters have less depth than a cardboard cutout since the authors usually mistake "cool powers" for character detail."
My main gripe is that too many "authors" can't write characters and instead write collections of powers and "special background", and too many authors can't create tension and instead put in a "world is in danger" clichee in a failed attempt to compensate.
And in a novel tied to a RPG setting, the setting shouldn't be changed as a result of the novel. If in a midnight novel the evil overlord is defeated and the setting returns to basically "good" as a result, then that's ruining the entire setting.

Look, if I'm going to have to listen to some dumbass hack 'character depth' like the kind you just posted then I better be witnessing some cool powers out of the deal.

I don't know about fantasy in general, but I do know that as far as Tabletop Games characters don't have to be more complicated than 'I am a hate-filled dwarf monk who can't grow a beard and I want to fuck up the dwarf lords with my fists'. And this character will have much more description about their Dancing Flower Fist then how they feel about being exiled from their homeland. And you know what? That's okay. As long as the Dancing Flower Fist description is interesting then who gives a shit?

That is the thing - Elaine could have found ways to explain why raise dead did not work. She simply ignored it though, which felt wrong.

And my whole point is that the novel should be true to the setting. If there are no rules about superman in the batman game, superman shouldn't be in the batman novel. Especially not as main character.

When you're adapting a work or expanding on it, sometimes what you're writing has stupid elements that don't fit into a story.

For example, Batman used to shoot people with the gun that murdered his parents. This element was obviously dropped in derivative works. Since it's a retarded element I don't see why future authors should've tried to make it work in the confines of their story. Like the Raise Dead example, it hurts the story more than it helps in her eyes so it should be just dropped.

[Fuchs]

If the story needs to ignore the setting to work, then it's the wrong story for the setting.

[angelfromanotherpin]

[FatR]

Three points. First, novels, even decently-written novels, are bane of every RPG setting that allows them to have major effects on the game setting. FR was fucked as a game world precisely because it integrated novels into metaplot. As a result, the novel characters overran the setting, pushed PCs on the sidelines and created the enormous continuity tangle.

Second, yes, DnD novels are known for their complete disregard for, well, DnD. Practically all authors ignore the fact that a humble 10-th level DnD fighter probably can curbstomp Benedict of Amber, judging by the things said fighter defeats on a regular basis, and magic in DnD is an earth-shattering power, not an ability to fire some weak-ass beam attacks. But, for that matter, setting authors tend to ignore this too, so it is not a novel-specific problem.

Third, there is nothing wrong with unusual and strange characters. DnD world is fantastic enough to have a place for just about everything. And writing about more mundane characters won't enable hacks to write decent character development.

[Username17]

If the story needs to ignore the setting to work, then it's the wrong story for the setting.

Yes.

In an RPG, your characters are not special. They do what the rules tell them that they can do. Their powers and the rolls of the dice generate the outcomes of their actions.

If you need to ditch the rules to tell a good story, your rules are bad. And you should change the rules. But if you can tell a good story within the rules and the story you want to tell can't be - then it's obviously the wrong story for you to be telling right there.

If you want to tell a story about medichlorians, don't put the fucking Star War label on it.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

In an RPG, your characters are not special. They do what the rules tell them that they can do. Their powers and the rolls of the dice generate the outcomes of their actions.

Well I actually do like the idea of having PCs in an RPG using different rules than monsters to make them more special.

It's not exactly the same as a novel where the hero is truly one of a kind, but PCs definitely should get some kind of edge.

[Thymos]

Well I actually do like the idea of having PCs in an RPG using different rules than monsters to make them more special.

Except this leads to really messed up shit like JRPG bosses (huge hit points, I mean huge, and no damage to speak of) and glass cannon monsters.

Certain rare monsters may actually need somewhat different rules. These are few and far between.

Oh a whole though most monsters should be pretty damn close to what PC of their level can do. A minotaur should be damn close to a fighter of the appropriate level, not some low HP huge Str beast that is only balanced because it doesn't have magic items.

Medusa's should have some kind of paralytic power that a PC could have, not have next to no combat ability combined with a special power so strong that they have to up their CR and make them a one trick pony that can't do anything else besides her trick because she'll fail.

The PC's edge is that the DM is kind enough to throw an encounter at them where they probably will succeed (or not depending on what kind of game that DM is running).

[RandomCasualty2]

Oh a whole though most monsters should be pretty damn close to what PC of their level can do. A minotaur should be damn close to a fighter of the appropriate level, not some low HP huge Str beast that is only balanced because it doesn't have magic items.

That's where I disagree. There are a number of reasons why monsters and PCs should be different.

First, you want the PCs to feel special. So you probably don't want every fighter to be the same as a PC fighter, because it doesn't say "you're special" it says "you're a dime a dozen." Sometimes this may not be so bad, if for instance you're not running a cinematic style game, but a more grim and gritty style. But otherwise, I don't see a problem wtih having the PC's abilities being uniquely good.

Second, NPCs and monsters as PCs just doesn't work. It leads to pointless tax code format where the DM has to jump through a bunch of hoops to make monsters and just piles on prep time for no reason.

Third, PCs and monsters play different games. Monsters exist to fight one fight, while PCs are designed to go through an entire quest. This means that monsters actually benefit a lot from using PC rules if there's any kind of resource depletion mechanic, since an NPC wizard can use all his spell slots in one battle, while the PC wizard has to consider that there may be more than one fight.

Now once in a while you may want an exceptional villain who has awesome shit too, but for your average monster, they probably shouldn't have PC level abilities.

Medusa's should have some kind of paralytic power that a PC could have, not have next to no combat ability combined with a special power so strong that they have to up their CR and make them a one trick pony that can't do anything else besides her trick because she'll fail.

While they should have other combat options, that has nothing to do with the fact that they have a special power.

The PC's edge is that the DM is kind enough to throw an encounter at them where they probably will succeed (or not depending on what kind of game that DM is running).

While this is true, most people don't want it be obvious. PCs want to feel like heroes, and that means the illusion of fighting against the odds. Double or triple teaming some NPC who is just as powerful as you are doesn't make you seem heroic. In fact, it seems like you're just making cheap shots on people.

And different monsters and PCs doesn't necessarily lead to JRPG style. If you want you can make the damage/HP curve similar, instead of going wtih the JRPG format of monsters with huge HP and glass cannon PCs.

[NineInchNall]

If you want to tell a story about medichlorians, don't put the fucking Star War label on it.

So true. It was as if millions of childhoods suddenly cried out in terror ...

[Thymos]

First, you want the PCs to feel special. So you probably don't want every fighter to be the same as a PC fighter, because it doesn't say "you're special" it says "you're a dime a dozen." Sometimes this may not be so bad, if for instance you're not running a cinematic style game, but a more grim and gritty style. But otherwise, I don't see a problem wtih having the PC's abilities being uniquely good.

I'm not saying give them all the same abilities. There are ways to make them different without making one better than the others. Give PC's different abilities to choose from, all equally good. Give monsters pre-selected abilities that require minimum thought to use.

Usually when you hear about differentiating monsters and PC's, it's so that you can throw monsters together that don't resemble a balanced PC (aka. medusa).

Second, NPCs and monsters as PCs just doesn't work. It leads to pointless tax code format where the DM has to jump through a bunch of hoops to make monsters and just piles on prep time for no reason.

I'm not saying monsters and PC's need to be exactly the same, just that they need similar ranges, and abilities of the same level need to be on the same power curve.

Third, PCs and monsters play different games. Monsters exist to fight one fight, while PCs are designed to go through an entire quest. This means that monsters actually benefit a lot from using PC rules if there's any kind of resource depletion mechanic, since an NPC wizard can use all his spell slots in one battle, while the PC wizard has to consider that there may be more than one fight.

Yes, and where is this resource depletion curve that works for PC's but doesn't work for monsters? If your talking about it being ok for monsters to have at will abilities handed out on a whim but not PC's, then I wonder what your worlds versimilitude looks like (let alone that you can easily put limits on monsters and just tell the dm to ignore them if they are too much of a hassle).

The PC wizard may have to consider there being more than one fight, but honestly this isn't a good way to balance the PC wizard.

I'm not arguing that PC's and Monsters should be the same thing (although I'm not arguing against that). I'm arguing that Monsters should of the right level should be balanced against PC's of the right level. CR, EL, ECL, all that shit produced was glass cannons and trick monsters. Instead HD should have been the same thing as level from the get go.

[ZER0]

Giant Crabs?

[Neeeek]

Giant Crabs?

No...Giant Crabs!!!!

For a bonus, the TPK-per-minute adventure.

[RandomCasualty2]

Usually when you hear about differentiating monsters and PC's, it's so that you can throw monsters together that don't resemble a balanced PC (aka. medusa).

No, I'm not really saying that.

Well to some degree I am. I mean not all monsters will be viable PCs. Sometimes it may just be because the monster is stupid. Like a giant scorpion won't be a viable PC because it has the drawback that it can't think and doesn't use tools.

And in such cases, it's okay to have monsters that just do one thing. A giant beetle just isn't going to be a very deep and option filled creature, nor should it be. Every quest needs its supporting cast of mooks. And it's fine to just say that a mook doesn't make a very good PC. I really don't want to have a bunch of crazy options for the king's grunt guards. I just want them to be a mild threat to the PCs who occasionally hit them and deal damage and maybe have one gimmick at the most. But I don't really want to build them as PCs. They're not supposed to have depth, and that's okay.

Now a main villain on the other hand should have some degree of depth to him, but not every random goblin lackey that you encounter. Further, I don't want to have to waste time equipping lackeys with magic items and crunching numbers. I just want a guideline of "what's a good attack bonus for a lackey monster against 5th level PCs" and then just to read a number from a table.

I'm not saying monsters and PC's need to be exactly the same, just that they need similar ranges, and abilities of the same level need to be on the same power curve.

Well, yes and no. Remember PCs and monsters aren't playing the same game. Not unless you toss the concept of resource depletion.

Yes, and where is this resource depletion curve that works for PC's but doesn't work for monsters? If your talking about it being ok for monsters to have at will abilities handed out on a whim but not PC's, then I wonder what your worlds versimilitude looks like (let alone that you can easily put limits on monsters and just tell the dm to ignore them if they are too much of a hassle).

No, It's not really about at wills so much as it is about daily abilities. For PCs, daily abilities (like a wizard's spell slots) need to stretch over possibly many encounters. For NPCs this just isn't true. An NPC's daily abilities are in fact encoutner abilities because NPCs only fight one battle per day. Further, PCs may walk into fights wounded or low on spells, while NPCs never have this problem.

Now you can toss that paradigm entirely and say that each side goes into each fight at 100%, but that'd be a vast shift from D&D.

I'm arguing that Monsters should of the right level should be balanced against PC's of the right level. CR, EL, ECL, all that shit produced was glass cannons and trick monsters. Instead HD should have been the same thing as level from the get go.

Well, HD isn't necessarily a great indicator, because it doesn't really mean much, even among PCs. A 5th level monk and a 5th level wizard both have the same amount of hit dice. Really, I always thought CR was a better indicator than anything, because that's supposed to say "Okay, how tough is this monster really supposed to be?"

And that's all we care about.

[Thymos]

Well to some degree I am. I mean not all monsters will be viable PCs. Sometimes it may just be because the monster is stupid. Like a giant scorpion won't be a viable PC because it has the drawback that it can't think and doesn't use tools.

Agreed, all monsters don't make viable PC's. This doesn't mean PC creation rules are entirely inappropriate for the monster though.

You have to keep in mind though that extreme drawbacks don't balance out extreme bonuses. I think the range PC's have on this continuum is good enough.

And in such cases, it's okay to have monsters that just do one thing. A giant beetle just isn't going to be a very deep and option filled creature, nor should it be. Every quest needs its supporting cast of mooks. And it's fine to just say that a mook doesn't make a very good PC. I really don't want to have a bunch of crazy options for the king's grunt guards. I just want them to be a mild threat to the PCs who occasionally hit them and deal damage and maybe have one gimmick at the most. But I don't really want to build them as PCs. They're not supposed to have depth, and that's okay.

I'm not suggesting that PC's and Monsters use the same creation tools. I'm saying they should be balanced against each other at the same level, which leads to it being easier to simply base monsters off of PC classes with fewer choices. A bunch of mooks are really just lower level PC classes. Not all abilities have to be thinking intensive, heck it's very easy to make some abilities passive and others active and just let the mooks have only passive abilities. I agree that NPC's don't need depth, but to take a PC class as an example, what depth does the Barbarian really have beyond rage?

As far as guidelines go, pregenerated characters and monsters are wonderful things. I love tables with attacks and such already figured out for me.

No, It's not really about at wills so much as it is about daily abilities. For PCs, daily abilities (like a wizard's spell slots) need to stretch over possibly many encounters. For NPCs this just isn't true. An NPC's daily abilities are in fact encoutner abilities because NPCs only fight one battle per day. Further, PCs may walk into fights wounded or low on spells, while NPCs never have this problem.

Isn't the 5 minute workday that's constantly getting thrown about around here exactly describing this problem? Daily abilities don't mean that (except in cases of extreme time constraint) PC's save them for the right encounter. It means they chuck them at the very beginning and then rest before the next encounter.

This balance mechanism isn't working.

Well, HD isn't necessarily a great indicator, because it doesn't really mean much, even among PCs. A 5th level monk and a 5th level wizard both have the same amount of hit dice. Really, I always thought CR was a better indicator than anything, because that's supposed to say "Okay, how tough is this monster really supposed to be?"

Agreed, HD is a horrible indicator as it is, and even classes among PC's are horribly balanced. If we can't even balance the PC's though, what chance in hell do we have of balancing the monsters?

I'm not saying HD at the moment is a good indicator. I'm saying that if it were properly designed HD should line up with level and we wouldn't even need to bother with CR in the first place since that would be superfluous.

Yah, we want to know how tough a monster is supposed to be. Without putting some kind of equalizer on monsters though we end up with things like the Rhemorraz, which destroy parties on foot and get annihilated by anything with flight. This monster, frex, has no balance whatsoever to it.

[Tequila Sunrise]

And this is the second reason that I don't read game novels, and give a swift kick to the Jimmy of anyone who complains that the game isn't run by "canon". The first reason of course, is because I can count on two fingers the number of game novelists who don't blow.

TS

[Fuchs]

I don't have a problem with PCs and monsters not using the same rules - my rant here is directed (partially) at novel characters (those portrayed as PCs in the novel) who break the rules for PCs. Like when it's hard-written in the rules that armor and magic do not work together, and the novel centers on Sir Speciallot, who can work magic while wearing armor since he's just that special.

Some exceptions for monsters and NPCs are ok, but the characters readers identify with, and who are acting as the main protagonists, should be molded as PCs, and following PC rules.

[JonSetanta]

Isn't the 5 minute workday that's constantly getting thrown about around here exactly describing this problem? Daily abilities don't mean that (except in cases of extreme time constraint) PC's save them for the right encounter. It means they chuck them at the very beginning and then rest before the next encounter.

I have a solution for adventurers too busy to stop and rest.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... oopSocking

[Starmaker]

Some exceptions for monsters and NPCs are ok, but the characters readers identify with, and who are acting as the main protagonists, should be molded as PCs, and following PC rules.

Exactly. When people read FR novels, they want to play drow with 2 scimitars, and the D&D rules do not deliver.

I liked the distinction made in Exalted, where the Solar Exalted (the heroes) based their awesome magics on skills, while the Dragon-Blooded Exalted (the villains, though also playable) based theirs on stats. We're heroes, we're supposed to fight against odds and persevere due to experience and hard work, and the monsters are dirty cheaters that are suposed to be exterminated.

Dragonlance could be a good setting for roleplaying in a war-torn world. Some of the short stories are actually good. But the novels (which, btw, introduced me to fantasy - I was 11 at the time) made it impossible to have meaningful adventures in that setting, and the fact that Dragonlance computer games either feature the pregen module-and-book characters or are set after the war sort of proves it.

[Roy]

Why the fuckity fuckstar has no one mentioned the Star Wars system yet? I tried to get into it, but every other page was basically 'x works like y, because that's how Always Better Than You canon character used it once at some random moment once for some obscure reason. Also, 'you're just some mook who can seriously get insta gibbed by random stormtroopers at level 20, only the canon characters actually matter'. Or how about 'Did we tell you you're a mook yet? Because you are. Now Luke Skywalker, he's fucking awesome'.

...

Wait a damn minute...

*casts Discern Location on Elennsar*

[Heath Robinson]

I liked the distinction made in Exalted, where the Solar Exalted (the heroes) based their awesome magics on skills, while the Dragon-Blooded Exalted (the villains, though also playable) based theirs on stats. We're heroes, we're supposed to fight against odds and persevere due to experience and hard work, and the monsters are dirty cheaters that are suposed to be exterminated.

DBs are ability-based. Lunars are the attribute-based ones.

It makes sense, since Lunars are the crazy werebeasts that have flexibility as their schtick. Dragonblooded are the "mooks" amongst the Exalted, so they're intended to heavily specialise. They also get flashy elemental powers (whereas Solars get perfection as their schtick).

[Koumei]

Weren't Dragonblooded the ones with awesome martial arts trees and ability charms?

Incidentally, on the topic of "Pick up a gaming thinking of the archetypical iconic things, surprise you're a mook!", fucking Dark Heresy.

I have lost my love for it. Aside from "lol, enjoy your failure rate" (a really optimised character could have, upon starting, a 50-58% chance of succeeding on trained skills in their best stat. Likely at the expense of everything else), there are just problems where it is not 40K.

No really, I don't fucking care that there is one published campaign where you sort of interact with a Spess Mehrin (and if you fight him you die, BAD END), and that the book shows pictures of Bolters and Chainswords (with costs that say "YOU CAN'T HAVE THIS"). You are playing as the bottom of the barrel, mooks that the Inquisitor throws around because he doesn't care if you die. Fuck that shit.

I'd be tempted to re-write it as S-tier/A-tier/Eddie-tier if I thought anyone would play it. But really, you pick the book up, thinking of Inquisitors, Battle Sisters and Commissars that are cool/successful enough to get books written about them, and you get to play as the people who die by the masses to prove how evil the enemy cult is, or how unimportant the Imperium considers you.

[Elennsar]

No kidding. Being low on the totem pole is one thing. This is being not worth wasting a bolt round on.

If DH was written for the IG, you would be the people killed in training.

Being a subordinate is one thing. Being a drone - barf.

If I have to refer to an Inquisitor as the Grand Exalted Agent of the Emperor, Praise Be His Name, Please Don't Hurt Me, I'd at least like to be someone picked for a reason other than his necrophiliac cravings.